The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know we don't categorize buildings in general as "recycled" since most buildings are used for many things during their existance. We don't even have categories for Brownfield land or Urban renewal. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: We have categories for Dutch, English and Polish Popes, of which there were precisely one of each. We also have categories for Portuguese and some other nationality Popes of which there are only two. Most of the subcategories of Category:Non-Italian popes are very small and have little prospect of being anything else, with the typical papal reign being of the order of decades. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In general I share your unhappiness about extremely small sub-categories. But I have a question: why delete Dutch, but not English and Polish? Were they supposed to be tagged too? Cgingold (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - However pointless these categories may seem from the Category:Popes side, they seem at least potentially useful from the English, Dutch, etc. side. See, e.g., Category:English clergy. Which of the non-Italian categories are envisioned to be kept? The French who seem to have quite a number of popes? --Lquilter (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Main article, which is named Gravitation and the category name should match. "Gravity" redirects to the Gravitation article and having the main article and category names not match will only contribute to reader confusion. The correct category hierarchy would be: "Gravitation", which includes "Category:Theories of gravitation", which then includes, if needed, a very narrow category named "Gravity" or perhaps "Newton's theory of gravity".--Truthnlove (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename the Canadian-English variant "defencemen" over the redirect to the American-English variant "defensemen," since the category is about Americans. Flibirigit (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've always thought the rationale for replacing the trusty old Category:American/Canadian ice hockey players with position based categories was faulty. Numerous players have played several different positions throughout their careers. --72.25.35.208 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose & Strongly Oppose upmerge Parent cat uses the non-American variant of the category, and cats should be consistent. Since the game itself is most closely associated with Canada having been invented there and since the category itself is not referring to a singular person but the position itself it should remain consistent with the parent cat and that of the article itself Defenceman (ice hockey). There is no reason to make a exception for a single countries variation from the norm. -Djsasso (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eventually you will claim that for consistency's sake all American player pages should use the defence/centre spellings. Along with the ridiculous "it's Canada's game" bullshit, it's essentially the same exact argument you've made countless times before. And though you've said all American players should use the American variations, according to you that doesn't apply to a certain Michigan native.[1] An upmerge would be preferable since there were no language variation disputes with American ice hockey players or Canadian ice hockey players. --72.25.35.208 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think all the American players should change the spelling. That link you provided is most likely an accident when I disambiguated the link. I unintenionally changed the actual page version too. Categories however, should all have the same spelling as their parent categories to avoid confusion. An upmerge would cause other issues to occur. Most people have no issue with the spelling. You on the other hand seem to argue it constantly while hiding behind multiple IP address and accounts. -Djsasso (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how many months ago is that arguement? Opinions change. I no longer feel categories are part of the article. It must be nice to be able to link to peoples arguements when they aren't hiding behind IPs and Sockpuppet accounts eh? Make debates so much easier to have. -Djsasso (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it much harder to make an argument when people call me a sockpuppet and suggest I'm hiding behind IPs. Logging in would not make me immune to that. I will admit it is easy to link to someone's past arguments to make them look foolish. I could easily point out that your isolated "accident" on February 5th with the Modano article extended to a few other articles. The problem with claiming it was an accident is that you seem to have such an aversion to the American variation that you never seem to use it when it is required. --72.25.35.208 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to do as you wish. But the reasoning behind this arguement is still sound, despite what I may or may have not argued in the past. Again, I do not have an aversion to the spelling in the least, I do have an aversion to people arguing just for the sake of arguing and doing so while hiding behind IPs and various accounts all the time so that their past is harder to track. Just because my spell check is set to CA-ENG does not mean I have an aversion to US-ENG, I am sure you could find tonnes of articles where I let my spell check make a change that I didn't scrutinize close enough to stop it from changing. If you feel the need to link them all you are welcome to, however, it does only make you look more foolish for wasting so much time on a trivial subject. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blame it on the spell checker, brilliant. I think you're full of shit. Point out one instance where you used US-ENG in a player's article. --72.25.35.208 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. The discussion has yielded at least five unique proposals (rename "centres" to "centers", keep as is, rename to "Ice hockey centers from the United States", upmerge, double-upmerge), each of which has some basis in category guidelines for consistency, spelling differences, and/or overcategorisation. Additional discussion is warranted to determine whether the category should exist at all or should be upmerged; if there is no consensus to upmerge, then discussion could focus on the issue of naming. However, a renomination would probably result in a more focused discussion than a relisting. Black Falcon(Talk)19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename the Canadian-English variant "centres" over the redirect to the American-English variant "centers," since the category is about Americans. Flibirigit (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parent cat uses the non-American variant of the category, and cats should be consistent. Since the game itself is most closely associated with Canada having been invented there and since the category itself is not referring to a singular person but the position itself it should remain consistent with the parent cat and that of the article itself Centre (ice hockey). There is no reason to make a exception for a single countries variation from the norm. -Djsasso (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would support the rename, but when I started reading this discussion I thought that the category was for places in the United States where ice hockey is played. It wasn't until I reached the middle of the second comment that I discovered it was about players, not places. I think we should try to come up with a better name for the whole lot of them. Cgingold (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not oppose that move, but, that discussion would be much larger than just athletes. My opinion is that players all would belong to a root category of one or more nationalities (American people; Finnish people; etc), so, naming the categories for the individual similarly would not constitute a problem. Teams, on the other hand, aren't American, Swedish, etc, and, the parent category that they most likely fall under is some form of "sport in country". To rename players, you would have to rename all nationality-based categories. Neier (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are numerous examples of players playing a forward position and defense sometime throughout their playing careers. Mark Howe, for instance, played Left Wing before switching to Defense. --72.25.35.208 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is rare enough that those players, could be in both categories without causing over categorization. Forwards switching between forward positions is another story and could probably just be merged into a straight out forward category. Though that would probably get over populated eventually which is the reason for splitting up by position anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
